Modern Middle East/Dr. KramerDate: April 11, 2010

The concept of jihad has been brought up a lot, and when one brings it up,

often times many think about militant Islam. However, the term jihad goes back

further than the concept of militant Islam, since the time of the Prophet in fact. The

abuse of jihad, however, is a much more recent notion. Used to insight anger within

Muslims, many have tried to use the idea of jihad in order to legitimize warring

actions. One such event was the declaration of jihad by the Ottoman Turks in 1914

during the Great War (WWI). However, this fatwa was not as popular, nor as

powerful as other callings for jihad in the past. This of course is due to many

different reasons, but first we must look at the concept of jihad. What does a true

jihad entail? Who is the enemy in the jihad? These questions will all answered

within the first part of this endeavor, while the second part shall delve into the issue

of the sultan’s fatwa of 1914.

Part 1: Jihad

The term jihad in Arabic literally means “struggle”, and deals mainly with the

personal “struggle” within each Muslim. However, Islamic law does condone one

kind of war, which is also called a jihad or “Holy War in the western world.

According to Rudolph Peters, jihad is a war against unbelievers, and its main aim is

not to forcibly convert unbelievers to Islam, as thought by the older European

literature, but to expand and defend the Islamic state.1 Unbelievers who were

1 Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Mediaeval and Modern Islam, Vol. V (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977). P. 3.

defeated by the Muslims were given a choice: either convert to Islam and gain

complete civil rights, or do not convert, and pay a special tax. Rudolph Peters also

brings up the interesting notion of the ulterior motives behind the jihad. Peters

states that a jihad is not strictly concerned with religious reasons, since there is no

real distinction between state and religion within Islamic Law. Because of this, a

jihad cannot be defined as a “Holy War”, and this is only due to European literature

from the past.2 Peters also states, “Within the past as well as recently these religious

sentiments have been exploited by rulers with a view to mobilize the people for

wars.”3 This clearly shows that religious as well as political motivations have been

involved greatly with calls for jihad.

Within the aspect of jihad, there are several things that must be taken into

account, such as the nature of the very person who issues the call to jihad, the

Sheihk al-Islam. According Peters, these entail the persons who are obliged to

partake in the jihad, the enemy of the jihad, the prerequisites for warfare, and the

aims of warfare4.

As to the first part, a jihad is said to be a collective event, and so must not be

brought upon for personal reasons. Also, not every Muslim is taken on the jihad,

since the Prophet left Muslims behind while at battle.5 As to the enemy of the jihad,

the Koran claims that only polytheists shall be fought. The Koran states “Fight them

until there is no persecution and the religion is entirely Allah’s”.6 With this in mind,

2 Ibid. p. 4.3 Ibid. p. 4.4 Ibid. p. 9.5 Ibid. p. 10.6 Ibid. p. 11.

other monotheistic religions, or as Islam refers to them, “people of the Book”, such

as Christianity and Judaism, were not considered enemies of a jihad, with the

exception of defending Islam. Also, as was said earlier, “people of the Book” who had

been brought under the rule of Islam were given the choice of converting to Islam,

or paying a special tax. As to the prerequisites of warfare, according to the Koran it

is only lawful to wage jihad against enemies that have heard the summons to Islam.

The Koran states, “We have not been accustomed to punish until We have sent a

messenger”7. This seems to show that before attacking, the Muslims offer

negotiating terms of Islam to their enemies. The final issue to approach is the aims

of the warfare, which as has been said before, is simply the conversion to Islam, or

payment of the poll tax. This is stated within the Koran:8

Fight against those who do not believe in Allah…and do not practice the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the [poll tax] off-hand, being subdued.

Now that we have established some of the basic ideas behind jihad, let us

now turn to the main example set forth at the beginning of this excursion: the jihad

fatwa for WWI.

Part 2: The Fatwa of 1914

7 Ibid. p. 20.8 Ibid. p. 24.

World War One, also known as the “Great War”, truly engulfed a good portion

of the world in warfare. It was a conflict involving Great Britain, France and Russia

on one side, while Prussia and Austria-Hungary were on the other. The only other

main powers to enter the scene were the United States of America and the Ottoman

Empire. The United States would not enter the action until later on in the war.

However, the Ottoman Empire would enter the Great War in 1914. In order to “gain

more fuel for the fire”, a jihad was issued by Sheikh ul Islam, the head of the

religious Islam. However, this did not hold as much weight as other jihads for

several different reasons.

First, we must take a look at the “messenger”, the Sheikh ul Islam. Many of

the Muslims did not pay attention to the fatwa, because they considered the Sheikh

to be a “notorious atheist”9.

Not only that, but stories were being spread that Emperor William had

embraced Islam and assumed the title of Hajji Wilhelm Mohamed.10 Clearly, this was

a means of propaganda in order to back up the credibility of the jihad. However, we

cannot just look at the players behind this matter. We must take a look at the words

of these players, specifically within the five fatwas issued by the Sheikh ul Islam.

On November 11th of 1914, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet V declared war on

Russia, France, and Great Britain. In order to make the declaration credible to the

9 Sir Valentine Chirol, The Turkish Empire from 1288 to 1914 (New York, New York: Howard Fertig, 1969). P. 378.10 Ibid. p. 378.

religious community, fatwas were issued in the form of questions answered with a

“yes”. The first fatwa states:11

When it occurs that enemies attack the Islamic world, when it has been established that they seize and pillage Islamic countries and capture Moslem persons and when His Majesty the Padishah of Islam thereupon orders the jihad in the form of a general mobilization, has jihad then, according to the illustrious Koranic verse: ‘March out light and heavy [hearted], and strive with goods and persons [in the way of Allah; that will be better for you’ (K 9:41)], become incumbent upon all Moslems in and has it become an individual duty for all Moslems in all parts of the world, be they young or old, on foot or mounted, to hasten to partake in the jihad with their goods and money?

There are several issues with this fatwa. First, the “enemies” stated are

definitely referring to the British, French and Russian forces of Great War. However,

attacks during the Great War were not against Islam, and were merely considered

political issues. The beginning players were Serbs who assassinated the Archduke

Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, and this was due to the ethnical abuse against

the rights of the Serbs in Serbia (which was a part of the Austria-Hungary Empire at

the time). There was no issue relating to religion, and so the Islamic world would

feel no threat. Now this is not to say that Islam would not feel threatened later in the

war (especially from Russia, who wished to create a warm water port in the

Mediterranean). The other issue is that the fatwa calls for the “old” as well as the

“young” to partake in the jihad. A jihad does not compel everyone to go on the jihad,

and so many of the Muslims felt that only those capable should partake. This goes

11 Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979). p. 90.

along also with the third fatwa that was issued, which claims that those who do not

partake in the jihad deserve “Divine wrath”12. Since the Prophet stated that not

everyone should go on jihad, this fatwa is clearly improbable.

Two of the other fatwas state that it is necessary to fight the British, French,

and Russian forces because they are hostile to the Islamic Caliphate, and so must be

declared war against. As was stated before, the British, French and Russian forces

declared war for political purposes in order to protect the smaller nations of Serbia

and Montenegro from the Austria-Hungary Empire. Islam was never called into

question, and so a jihad, which is in fact a religious war, cannot be waged when

religion is not called into question.

The final fatwa states a very important part of the jihad, the enemy. It

states:13

Is it in this case for the Moslems that are in the present war under the rule of England, France, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro and their allies, since it is detrimental to the Islamic Caliphate, a great sin to fight against Germany and Austria which are the allies of the Supreme Islamic Government and do they deserve [by acting so] a painful punishment [in the Here-after]?

The main issue with this fatwa can be found within the very players of

message. Due to the fact that a jihad deals with religious as well as political affairs,

we must therefore take a look at the religions of these players. Each one of these

nations is a predominately Christian nation. Therefore, how can the Ottomans

declare a jihad upon the British, French, and Russians, when the Muslims

12 Ibid. p. 91.13 Ibid. p. 91.

themselves would be allied with other Christian nations? Although during the

Prophet’s age the Christians were considered to not be the enemy of the Muslims, by

the time of the Great War, the idea of jihad had become twisted, and so Christians

were considered “infidels”. Therefore, it would seem preposterous that the Muslims

would join one Christian power, to fight another Christian power.

Within these different areas of understanding jihad, and giving the main

example of the Ottoman jihad of the Great War, we can gain a better approach to

how the modern world sees jihad.

Bibliography

Chirol, Sir Valentine. The Turkish Empire from 1288 to 1914. New York, New York: Howard Fertig, 1969.Peters, Rudolph. Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History . The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979.—. Jihad in Mediaeval and Modern Islam. Vol. V. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.